Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Statement Analysis: Timothy Smith, NJ Attorney

New Jersey teacher, mom of 2, had sex with 6 different students ages 14 and 15 at school, in her car; 1 tryst filmed: prosecutor

Nicole DuFault, 35, allegedly had sex with six different young teen students, according to a grand jury's indictment.Essex County Sheriff's OfficeNicole DuFault, 35, allegedly had sex with six different young teen students, according to a grand jury's indictment.
A New Jersey teacher took advantage of six different students ages 14 and 15, having sex with them at school and in her car, for more than a year, prosecutors say.
Among the damning evidence is video of 35-year-old Nicole DuFault — the single mother of two young children — performing oral sex on one of the boys while another victim was nearby, according to prosecutors, who levied 40 counts of aggravated sexual assault and endangering the welfare of a child against the former Columbia High School teacher.
The Maplewood, N.J., teacher was busted in September and originally charged with having sex with three students. But two more victims were discovered shortly after and a grand jury, which indicted the teacher on Tuesday, found a sixth.
All of the incidents happened on “multiple occasions” in 2013 and 2014, prosecutors said.
DuFault daces 40 different charges after an Essex County grand jury found evidence suggesting she performed a series of sex acts with students at Columbia High School in Maplewood.Colter Hettich/New York Daily News Photo IllustrationDuFault daces 40 different charges after an Essex County grand jury found evidence suggesting she performed a series of sex acts with students at Columbia High School in Maplewood.
DuFault, originally of Bloomfield, spent nine years as a language arts teacher at Columbia High before her arrest.
The boys were all 14 and 15 years old. The sex acts took place on school property and in the teacher’s car, prosecutors say.
Despite the video evidence, which DuFault’s attorney admitted he had yet to see, her defense team plans a vigorous defense that may focus on the teen boys as the aggressors.
Attorney Timothy Smith, defending her said: 

If the video depicts certain things happening, that doesn’t mean that my client’s not innocent. People are victimized by juveniles all the time.”

Note the allegation is that a sex act was video taped.  This quote is in response to the allegation. 
Note he uses "not innocent" in reference to his client.  He does not say "that doesn't mean my client's guilty..."
Note he does not say "depicts certain things happened", but uses the word "happening" which indicates an ongoing event. 
Is he aware of more video?  There is no strong end (past tense) in his language.  
The "not innocent" is awkward sounding for a reason  

The alleged predator is free on $500,000 bail and is scheduled to appear in court March 6.

6 comments:

tania cadogan said...

Off topic

ASPEN, Colo. – Lance Armstrong pleaded guilty to careless driving for hitting two parked cars with his SUV in Aspen, a crash his girlfriend originally tried to take the blame for, a prosecutor confirmed Wednesday.

The cyclist entered his plea by mail on Friday under a plea agreement with prosecutors, closing the case and avoiding a court appearance. Two other charges, failing to report an accident and speeding too fast for conditions, were dismissed under the agreement, which was first reported by the Aspen Daily News.

Court records show Armstrong paid $238.50 to cover court fees and a $150 traffic fine.

Armstrong's girlfriend, Anna Hansen, initially told police she had been driving home from an Aspen Art Museum party Dec. 28 when she lost control of Armstrong's GMC Yukon on icy roads, hitting the cars. She said she drove because "Lance had a little bit to drink," according to police reports.

Detectives later interviewed Hansen, who eventually told them Armstrong was driving but the couple had decided to let her take the blame. She also retracted her statement about Armstrong being unable to drive because he had been drinking. None of the charges against Armstrong involved driving under the influence.

"We've had our family name smeared over every paper in the world in the last couple of years and honestly, I've got teenagers, I just wanted to protect my family," Hansen told police, the reports state.

Police say Hansen and Armstrong left the scene before police arrived. However, they say Hansen ran up to the house near the damaged cars and apologized to a man who had been renting one of them, promising to pay for the repairs.

Deputy District Attorney Andrea Bryan said it is fairly common for people to reach plea deals in such cases and to enter pleas by mail. Careless driving can be punished by between 10 and 90 days in jail and a fine from $150 to $300 but jail time in such cases is rare, she said.

Prosecutors reserved the right to seek restitution for the damaged cars but Bryan said she believes Armstrong has already done that voluntarily.

Armstrong won the Tour de France every year from 1999 to 2005. Those titles were stripped after a massive report by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency detailed the use of performance enhancing drugs by Armstrong and his U.S. Postal Service teammates.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/02/18/lance-armstrong-pleads-guilty-to-careless-driving-in-colorado/

john said...

Note he uses "not innocent" in reference to his client. He does not say "that doesn't mean my client's guilty..."

If he was to say "that doesn't mean my client's guilty..."

Would "My clients guilty" also be flagged as a possible embedded belief that his "client is guilty" ?

tania cadogan said...

“If the video depicts certain things happening, that doesn’t mean that my client’s not innocent. People are victimized by juveniles all the time.”
Talk about convoluted and leaking marbles.

The expected is my client is not guilty.

Here we have the unexpected my client's not innocent.

I would expect any attorney to view the video before opening mouth.
The use of IF allows for other possibilities.
Given the charges, what other possibilities could there be if not her performing a sex act on a child?

He then contradicts his comment regarding IF things are happening by then claiming people are victimised by juveniles all the time.
He doesn't however say his client was victimised by juveniles.

Anything in the negative is sensitive.

The contents of the video should result in him saying it doesn't mean my client is guilty.
He doesn't say that though.
He instead says "that doesn’t mean that my client’s not innocent"

He also doesn't say my client didn't do it.
This would suggest the video evidence is damning and that the my client didn't do it isn't going to fly.
Since it would be clear that she did do it, his only defence is to blame the victim which would explain his People are victimized by juveniles all the time.”
Even then he will struggle to prove his client was victimized since he refers to the population in general - people being victimised rather than my client was victimised.

His likely and best option is go for a plea deal for his client.
if he tries to play the victim card for his client it could backfire severely

Anonymous said...

Would be interesting if you analyzed this statement from the father in Hampstead accused of running Satanic cult, cutting off the heads of babies etc...
http://youtu.be/Do46rIf3lhY

Buckley said...

ICK!

jenny StMaire said...

anonymous @ 3.17

Thanks for posting.

I watched the video yesterday and was left shocked but with questions also. Because of the shock factor, I have to watch it again but I'm not in a hurry to do that.